RATIONALLY speaking, and from the tippy top of officialdom in the west, Marxist/socialist infused so-called elites are employing a scorched earth policy against Christianity and Judaism, America’s roots. It is verily impossible to deny what is taking place on the ground.

SO much so, their war starts with the kiddies. They are executing everything in their power to eviscerate all attachments to the traditional family. Mainly, but not exclusively, they are cutting off what it means to be male or female via sexual “re-assignments” ala the newly indoctrinated and bastardized lexicon, comparing it to slang words which evolve over time. Okey dokey.

Language changes with the times, and when it comes to our conceptions of gender, the times are most certainly changing.

We are opening up to the idea that binary conceptions of gender are unnecessarily rigid and don’t correspond to the self-image of a great many people, and even that people’s sense of their gender may not correspond to their biological sex. In this new world, a bland opposition between “he” and “she” seems increasingly antique, and even insulting, to many.

However, doing something about that is going to be a challenge. We are dealing not with merely giving new names to new things or actions, which is easy, but with using new pronouns, which is very hard.

This is why previous attempts to fashion gender-neutral pronouns haven’t caught on (believe it or not, there were once calls for the blend hesh!), and why as clever as today’s “ze” is, its evolution from in-house tradition to society-wide acceptance will be slow at least, and possibly ill-fated. Bias alone will play its part, surely, but even without it, new pronouns require a mental effort analogous to conceiving dimensions beyond the third.

The Princeton University HR department has largely wiped the word “man” from its vocabulary.

The relatively new policyin effect at the Ivy League institution spells out the directive in a four-page memo that aims to make the department more gender inclusive.

Instead of using “man,” employees are told to use words such as human beings, individuals or people…..

Marquette University’s Writing Center wrote a policy similar to UNC Chapel Hill’s, and it implies that those who do not abide by it may face consequences.

“When you are writing about people in general, many of your professors will expect you to use ‘inclusive’ or ‘nonsexist’ language, that is, gender neutral language,” Marquette’s website states, adding that many people find non-neutered language “not only inaccurate but offensive.”

In November 2013, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of theEmployment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that ENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity…..

The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don’t fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights? The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitablydissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes “hate speech” if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.

Under the guise of “rights,” the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State. Once we allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union, we grant the State more power to separate us from our children. As power becomes more centralized in the State, the individuals and institutions of the State, inevitably flawed, end up owning our personal relationships. With weakened mediating institutions—family, churches, private associations—we lose the buffer zones that stand between individuals and an encroaching state.

As he prepares to step down, citing his advancing years, Joachim Gauck hinted that he wanted a Muslim to succeed him. Further pushing his arrogance to the limit, he condemned the newly-growing sense of German national identity and the danger of a disintegration of the EU, saying: “The elites are not the problem at all, the population is at the moment the problem.”

UK Express The 76-year-old’s remarks are likely to create difficulties for the already embattled chancellor, Mrs Merkel, who is already facing an increasingly fractious debate over the Islamization of Germany, sparked by her open door refugee policy. Echoing his concerns, an MP for Mrs Merkel’s coalition government said people “will put up the wall by force” to this decision.

Christian Democratic (CDU) MP, Klaus-Peter Willsch added: “That is not good for our country.” Mr Gauck’s successor will not be decided by a direct vote, but by the political parties, along with a congress including sports people, celebrities and other public figures.

RISE OF THE 4TH REICH? German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel recently called for the “rounding up and imprisonment of German citizens who oppose mass Muslim immigration”

Vice-President of the EU Parliament, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, said it would not be acceptable for the next German president to be ”a mullah with a Turban” but it is plausible for a “representative of modern, enlightened Islam” (but there is no such thing) to be the next leader.

But Germany has witnessed a dramatic changing attitude of the nation’s population towards the religion over the past year, which has seen the arrival of more than one million MUSLIM migrants. CDU MP Karl- Georg Wellmann described the plans as “totally absurd”

He said: “That would not be appropriate in the current situation. This would only deepen the divisions in society. ”

ALONG said anti-western thrusts, it is an open “secret” that HUSSEIN despises Christianity (and Judaism), as does Hill. In fact – and with all due gratitude and respect to the hacking team at Wikileaks, high-fives all around – the following is prima facie proof of the charges at hand:

We all know that Hillary Clinton shamelessly exploits her Methodist upbringing for political use, but newly released emails from WikiLeaks reveal how Mrs. Clinton truly views her fellow Christians.

Not only does the Democrat support abortion and gay marriage, both of which are frowned upon in the Christian faith, we now know that those closest to Mrs. Clinton despised Catholics and their “backward” beliefs.

According to a series of emails between John Halpin, a senior fellow at the far-left Center for American Progress, and top Clinton aides Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta, the three smear Catholics and their beliefs as being “backwards” and showing contempt for American Catholics and Conservative Catholics…..refer further to attached reproduced email link.

NOT only that, as “good” totalitarians are wont to do, it is mandatory to have a submissive and compliant citizenry to get the job done!

Yet another document from the treasure trove Wikileaks has been releasing of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails has caused an uproar by appearing to lament the fact the American populace has grown ‘non-compliant.’

In this particular exchange, Bill Ivey — Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts under President Bill Clinton —wrote to Podesta in apprehension Hillary Clinton “is not an entertainer” and thus won’t be able to compete with bombastic reality star Donald Trump.

Ivey queries Podesta how they could “offset” this unexpected flaw in Clinton not being a “celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold.”

But what Ivey states next in this lamentation characteristic of 2016’s surreality has become the subject of hushed debate — because if his words are to be taken literally, they portend a possible methodological collusion to keep Americans docile and submissive — perhaps in the vein of panem et circenses….

STILL yet, and on a more practical basis, it is well documented that HUSSEIN’s DHS ensured that the borders remain open sesame to all manner of illegals, including those from Islamic jihad driven nations. In turn, their expectation is to tip the balance against the nation’s underpinnings. Again, why would they do that, and to what end?

CONCOMITANTLY, what is left hanging in the air remains: what is the nexus between the radical left, its Marxist/socialist imbued counterparts, with Islam’s soldiers for Allah? In other words, why would they cooperate on this tag-team effort? Yes, it’s a fair question.

IN a nutshell, the red/green alliance is, first and foremost, about the destruction of the west, irrespective of all else. Not only that, the ties that bind are their underpinned totalitarian ideologies, that which brook no dissent.

MORE specifically, the adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, is taken to heart by both. By extrapolation, when all is said and done, Obama and Clinton Inc.’s red henchmen, in tandem with Germany’s (assorted Euros alike) counterparts, are arrogant enough to believe that they can “control” Allah’s Muslim Terrorists.

EFFECTIVELY, not if, but when Islam’s soldiers for Allah take over the west, their co-conspirators are convinced that they will be able to remove the sword of Islam from their hands, thus, wielding the same “long knives” that the Nazis utilized against Christianity in general and Judaism in particular to regain the upper hand.